Harvard Eliquid Study Today

[skoony]

All things in life...... Endless possibilities.

As fast as we work through one another is presented
http://www.newsweek.com/e-cigarettes-are-just-addictive-tobacco-thanks-pyrazine-additives-342447


What Conspiracies?

Is there a workaround link? they want me to do a 30 day trial.

Funny that, just about the only thing that makes no sense to me ( at least as espoused by Skoony, btw do any other medical professionals or scientists favor this theory ? ) is the " dust theory ". Absolute non-sequitor as explained by Skoony.

Yes. Two prestigious Universities say as much. You've seen the links I provided.
Mt. Baker in their statement concerning diacetyl and another source specifically
stated it was diacetyl dust that was the main concern.
Diacetyl generally comes in three forms. Liquid,paste and powdered. No where in the extensive
literature from the government I have read ever distinguished what form of diacetyl was
of concern. Other than saying all three were used they never gave an indication if one
form or another or all three were equally as harmful or less harmful. they only did simulated
mixing experiments and reported the amount of diacetyl in the ambient air in ppm or ug per
volume. I do not recall precisely the measurement unit. Utilizing my knowledge of dust
hazards in a work place setting it's not a reach to conclude that dust is a very likely
source of the type of harm caused. Coal,silica,cotton,asbestos and,diacetyl embedded
in cornstarch and or flour have two things in common. Ingested they would be pretty harmless
in the amounts found even act the factory's. However when inhaled the problem is they get
stuck in the finer recesses of the lungs and normal biological activity cannot dislodge them.
The damage is caused just as much from the bodies immune system trying to dislodge them
as the accumulation over time continually irritating the surrounding tissues. This is the major
concern with the tar in cigarettes and whatever is mixed into it during the combustion process.
I am not saying I am 100% correct but,from what I have read the powdered form of diacetyl
has been the only one fingered out of the three forms as being the suspected causative form.

Regards
mike

 

[Mazinny]

You don't find it just a little strange when you see "known uses" BT, from the U.S. Dept of health ? Toxicologist have been studying diketones for years,
will the public ever get the truth now that the vape community is asking for it ?
2,3-Pentanedione 08010 - NTP

Sorry, i don't follow. What exactly are you asking if i find strange ?

 

[crxess]

Is there a workaround link? they want me to do a 30 day trial.

I just closed the Popover ad (laptop - full screen)

 

[Mazinny]

Yes. Two prestigious Universities say as much. You've seen the links I provided.

First off two prestigious universities didn't say what you claim. Second, University of Rochester copied the page on pneumoconiosis from the Johns Hopkins web page verbatim.

Third, your link talks about Pnemoconiosis ( a disease of the lungs due to inhalation of dust, characterized by inflammation, coughing, and fibrosis late 19th century: from pneumo- ‘relating to the lungs’ + Greek konis ‘dust’ + -osis. ) Other forms of diacetyl couldn't cause pneumoconiosis by definition.

To conclude from the preceding that therefore diacetyl only causes lung disease in the powder form, does not logically follow, therefore a non-sequitor.

Also, the rat studies specifically used heated butter flavoring vapor, not powder.

 

[sparkky1]

Sorry, i don't follow. What exactly are you asking if i find strange ?

They know the exact amount of diketones that are in cigarettes ...............

 

[Mazinny]

They know the exact amount of diketones that are in cigarettes ...............

I'm not sure who you mean by "they" but the two different sources i have seen citing varying diketone amounts in cigarettes were not based on studies conducted by "big tobacco" if that is what you mean. One was conducted by the consulting firm hired by the food industry in their on-going diacetyl trials, if i remember correctly, and one was a Japanese study !?

 

[skoony]

First off two prestigious universities didn't say what you claim. Second, University of Rochester copied the page on pneumoconiosis from the Johns Hopkins web page verbatim.

Third, your link talks about Pnemoconiosis ( a disease of the lungs due to inhalation of dust, characterized by inflammation, coughing, and fibrosis late 19th century: from pneumo- ‘relating to the lungs’ + Greek konis ‘dust’ + -osis. ) Other forms of diacetyl couldn't cause pneumoconiosis by definition.

To conclude from the preceding that therefore diacetyl only causes lung disease in the powder form, does not logically follow, therefore a non-sequitor.

Also, the rat studies specifically used heated butter flavoring vapor, not powder.

"Pneumoconiosis is a general term given to any lung disease caused by dusts that are breathed in and then deposited deep in the lungs causing damage. Pneumoconiosis is usually considered an occupational lung disease, and includesasbestosis, silicosis and coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP), also known as "Black Lung Disease."
Are you saying Rochester doesn't endorse the same position? Do you have a source specifically citing
the liquid or paste forms as the suspected causative agents that the workers were exposed too?
I will revisit the rat study I have it booked marked. I haven't the time right now. Please be assured I
am not making this stuff up. Until stated authoritatively other wise I am going by what my research
has indicated.

Regards
Mike

 

[Mazinny]

First off two prestigious universities didn't say what you claim. Second, University of Rochester copied the page on pneumoconiosis from the Johns Hopkins web page verbatim.

Third, your link talks about Pnemoconiosis ( a disease of the lungs due to inhalation of dust, characterized by inflammation, coughing, and fibrosis late 19th century: from pneumo- ‘relating to the lungs’ + Greek konis ‘dust’ + -osis. ) Other forms of diacetyl couldn't cause pneumoconiosis by definition.

To conclude from the preceding that therefore diacetyl only causes lung disease in the powder form, does not logically follow, therefore a non-sequitor.

Also, the rat studies specifically used heated butter flavoring vapor, not powder.

"Pneumoconiosis is a general term given to any lung disease caused by dusts that are breathed in and then deposited deep in the lungs causing damage. Pneumoconiosis is usually considered an occupational lung disease, and includesasbestosis, silicosis and coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP), also known as "Black Lung Disease."
Are you saying Rochester doesn't endorse the same position? Do you have a source specifically citing
the liquid or paste forms as the suspected causative agents that the workers were exposed too?
I will revisit the rat study I have it booked marked. I haven't the time right now. Please be assured I
am not making this stuff up. Until stated authoritatively other wise I am going by what my research
has indicated.

Regards
Mike

I don't know what Rochester endorses, what i am saying is they were not a source for anything, they copied the Johns Hopkins webpage. In any case, i am not disputing anything on that page. What i am saying is so what ? Saying types of lung disease caused by dust, are indeed caused by dust, isn't saying much ! What it doesn't do is say anything about other types of lung diseases caused by other things i.e. obstructive lung disease and bronchiolitis obliterans.

I have read the same studies you have, which clearly indicated all three forms were present, and in no way did they distinguish potential harm based on form factor. Their conclusion was that "diacetyl" is the likely culprit, not "powder".

I am not saying you are making anything up, just that i am not convinced by your conclusions, based on your links. Obviously you are free to believe whatever you want though.

 

[skoony]

I don't know what Rochester endorses, what i am saying is they were not a source for anything, they copied the Johns Hopkins webpage. In any case, i am not disputing anything on that page. What i am saying is so what ? Saying types of lung disease caused by dust, are indeed caused by dust, isn't saying much ! What it doesn't do is say anything about other types of lung diseases caused by other things i.e. obstructive lung disease and bronchiolitis obliterans.

I have read the same studies you have, which clearly indicated all three forms were present, and in no way did they distinguish potential harm based on form factor. Their conclusion was that "diacetyl" is the likely culprit, not "powder".

I am not saying you are making anything up, just that i am not convinced by your conclusions, based on your links. Obviously you are free to believe whatever you want though.

I have cited my sources. Kindly cite yours.
Respectful Regards
Mike

 

[Mazinny]

I have cited my sources. Kindly cite yours.
Respectful Regards
Mike

Source for what ? I haven't said anything that needs a source. All i did was to state that your supposed " sources " don't say what you have concluded, ie. diacetyl is only harmful in powder form.

I have reached no conclusions on this issue, and have published no statement of facts that require cites. Oddly enough prior to your link to the Johns Hopkins page for pneumoconiosis, i didn't even know that diacetyl is a culprit for this disease. I had only heard of links to obstructive lung disease, COPD and B.O.

 

[skoony]

Source for what ? I haven't said anything that needs a source. All i did was to state that your supposed " sources " don't say what you have concluded, ie. diacetyl is only harmful in powder form.

I have reached no conclusions on this issue, and have published no statement of facts that require cites.

No source I have found states otherwise.
Your turn.
Regards
Mike

 

[Shay.Babe15]

I've always had a hard time believing US based studies. Such a money hungry country.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[Mazinny]

No source I have found states otherwise.
Your turn.
Regards
Mike

sorry not interested in red herrings and tangents. won't play your game.

 

[sparkky1]

"Pneumoconiosis is a general term given to any lung disease caused by dusts that are breathed in and then deposited deep in the lungs causing damage. Pneumoconiosis is usually considered an occupational lung disease, and includesasbestosis, silicosis and coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP), also known as "Black Lung Disease."
Are you saying Rochester doesn't endorse the same position? Do you have a source specifically citing
the liquid or paste forms as the suspected causative agents that the workers were exposed too?
I will revisit the rat study I have it booked marked. I haven't the time right now. Please be assured I
am not making this stuff up. Until stated authoritatively other wise I am going by what my research
has indicated.

Regards
Mike

http://defendingscience.org/sites/default/files/upload/Kanwal.pdf

 

[VNeil]

I don't know what Rochester endorses, what i am saying is they were not a source for anything, they copied the Johns Hopkins webpage. In any case, i am not disputing anything on that page. What i am saying is so what ? Saying types of lung disease caused by dust, are indeed caused by dust, isn't saying much ! What it doesn't do is say anything about other types of lung diseases caused by other things i.e. obstructive lung disease and bronchiolitis obliterans.

I have read the same studies you have, which clearly indicated all three forms were present, and in no way did they distinguish potential harm based on form factor. Their conclusion was that "diacetyl" is the likely culprit, not "powder".

I am not saying you are making anything up, just that i am not convinced by your conclusions, based on your links. Obviously you are free to believe whatever you want though.

It is very clear that the Johns Hopkins/Rochester discussion of Pneumoconiosis is the same as any other description of BO. The terms are used somewhat interchangeably for the same diseases (Black Lung/Brown Lung/Popcorn Lung) caused by the same materials. Unless you are suggesting that coal dust, cotton/textile dust and diketones all cause two completely different and unrelated diseases?

Dust is the single obvious common denominator among those 3 causative agents. There are a couple of other chemical related causes of BO, but they involve extraordinarily toxic substances (chlorine and Nitrous Oxide) that are often thought to cause the disease from even very short term but intensive exposure. There is also Sulfur Dioxide but that is most commonly found in powdered form.

As far as the question of dust in those popcorn factories, the NIOSH report I previously cited (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2000-0401-2991.pdf) has over 200 references to "dust/dusty/powder/powdery/particulate" and other search variants. The authors were VERY interested in the dusty environment and include tables of the dust levels found. Near the end of the report they state that they were unable to extend their study to the issue of dust vs liquids, in terms of the causative agent. They reserved that for future study.

 

[Mazinny]

It is very clear that the Johns Hopkins/Rochester discussion of Pneumoconiosis is the same as any other description of BO. The terms are used somewhat interchangeably for the same diseases (Black Lung/Brown Lung/Popcorn Lung) caused by the same materials. Unless you are suggesting that coal dust, cotton/textile dust and diketones all cause two completely different and unrelated diseases?

Dust is the single obvious common denominator among those 3 causative agents. There are a couple of other chemical related causes of BO, but they involve extraordinarily toxic substances (chlorine and Nitrous Oxide) that are often thought to cause the disease from even very short term but intensive exposure. There is also Sulfur Dioxide but that is most commonly found in powdered form.

As far as the question of dust in those popcorn factories, the NIOSH report I previously cited (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2000-0401-2991.pdf) has over 200 references to "dust/dusty/powder/powdery/particulate" and other search variants. The authors were VERY interested in the dusty environment and include tables of the dust levels found. Near the end of the report they state that they were unable to extend their study to the issue of dust vs liquids, in terms of the causative agent. They reserved that for future study.

Pneumoconiosis and B.O. are not terms that are used interchangeably. Pneumoconiosis covers lung diseases that are caused by dust of any kind. If the dust happens to be diacetyl dust, it still may or not be B.O. It raises to the level of B.O. only if the lungs are obliterated, hence " obliterans ". More often than not it doesn't raise to that level.

I honestly don't understand why you are so adamant about reaching a medical conclusion that you are clearly not qualified to reach. Yelling from the top of your lungs from the rooftop and issuing error filled " statements of fact " as you did a few days ago is quite irresponsible imo.

 

[VNeil]

Pneumoconiosis and B.O. are not terms that are used interchangeably. Pneumoconiosis covers lung diseases that are caused by dust of any kind. If the dust happens to be diacetyl dust, it still may or not be B.O. It raises to the level of B.O. only if the lungs are obliterated, hence " obliterans ". More often than not it doesn't raise to that level.

I honestly don't understand why you are so adamant about reaching a medical conclusion that you are clearly not qualified to reach. Yelling from the top of your lungs from the rooftop and issuing error filled " statements of fact " as you did a few days ago is quite irresponsible imo.

Yet you refuse @skoony's challenge to name any sources of BO that are not associated with dusty environments (or extremely toxic chemicals). Let's leave lung transplants out of this- that would truly be a Red Herring.

 

[skoony]

Pneumoconiosis and B.O. are not terms that are used interchangeably. Pneumoconiosis covers lung diseases that are caused by dust of any kind. If the dust happens to be diacetyl dust, it still may or not be B.O. It raises to the level of B.O. only if the lungs are obliterated, hence " obliterans ". More often than not it doesn't raise to that level.

I honestly don't understand why you are so adamant about reaching a medical conclusion that you are clearly not qualified to reach. Yelling from the top of your lungs from the rooftop and issuing error filled " statements of fact " as you did a few days ago is quite irresponsible imo.

What are you referring too. The term covers any or all lung related illness no mater
what technical name is given. What expertise do you have to assert otherwise?

Regards

Mike

 

[Mazinny]

Yet you refuse @skoony's challenge to name any sources of BO that are not associated with dusty environments (or extremely toxic chemicals). Let's leave lung transplants out of this- that would truly be a Red Herring.

Dude, what challenge ? Why are you being so contentious.

I am not even claiming that diacetyl powder unequivocally causes B.O. All i am saying is that NIOSH suspects diacetyl is a culprit and not one scientists has distinguished potential harm based on the form factor of diacetyl. If you know of one, please indicate. I would be grateful.

 

[MJCSD]